Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Gerald Warner: What will we try next, after Blue Labour also fails?

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 22 March 2009
THE years 2010 to 2014 will be of key importance in political history because that is when the existing parliamentary system will be given its last chance by the British public. All the evidence suggests the burden of reasserting its credibility will fall upon a Conservative Government led by David Cameron.
That is a frightening thought because the Tory Party at present, despite its poll lead, is in the doldrums, deracinated ideologically and culturally. At the last Conservative conference, Cameron delivered a speech that would not have disgraced Disrae
li: a golden nugget gleaming amid the dross of his usual utterances. Alas, it proved a false dawn. Since then, it has been business as usual for Dave.

From the beginning of his leadership, under the fatal tutelage of Francis Maude and other carriers of the lethal virus Portillista modernensis, Dave set out to alienate his core support. The "heir of Blair" brand, Oliver Letwin's embrace of wealth redistribution, Boy George ruling out tax cuts in favour of "stability", the attack on grammar schools by Etonian Dave in May 2007: none of that has been forgotten.

Cameron's denunciation of Margaret Thatcher and shadow Cabinet Office minister Greg Clark's exhorting Tories to ditch Churchill as a role model in favour of Polly Toynbee persuaded Conservative voters that the lunatics had taken over the asylum. A longstanding poll lead conferred on Dave by the desperate unpopularity of Gordon Brown, teamed with a serious recession, has created an expectation of Tory victory in 2010. If so, it will be victory by default.

Belatedly, the Tories have begun to enunciate policies. As the recession dawned, they offered a two-year council tax freeze, a six-month VAT holiday for small and medium-sized businesses and a 1% National Insurance cut for six months for firms with fewer than five employees. Whew! Seismic, or what? This was followed by a pledge to freeze the BBC licence fee at its present rate of £139.50 until 2010, though no pledge could be given beyond that date. Since there is no conceivable prospect of a Tory Government within that time frame, this wimpish proposal was an insult to the public's intelligence.

Last week Dave recognised that this kind of fiscal petit-point embroidery was not going to cut it with the electorate, so he went nuclear. In a speech he declared: "Put simply, our overriding objective will need to change from sharing the proceeds of growth to paying down our debt." So, apart from the existing pledge on inheritance tax and possible fine-tuning for lower-income earners, tax cuts are off the agenda.

There you have it: no Tory tax cuts in days of plenty and now none to galvanise the economy in recession. Forget Polly Toynbee - these comedians are students of Brezhnev. The irony of it all, sufficient to make a thinking Tory weep, is that the one silver lining to the economic depression is the unique opportunity it offers for a radical remodelling of the economy. Now is the time when the pointy-heads in the party should be proposing a Flat Tax, melting down the unaffordable public sector to the tune of £50bn and selling off the squalid BBC to whatever porn channel is sufficiently lacking in self-respect to buy it.

Instead, we had Dave in the Spectator last Wednesday wittering on about "the post-bureaucratic age", described in an understated tone as "this idea so big, so bold and so wide in its scope". Good, Dave, by all means cut away bureaucracy and devolve power directly to the citizenry; but it all seems a trifle vague. The problem is that the Tories have lost their ideological core: this party is shaped like a Polo mint.

Sometimes, when fiscal and economic policies fail, a political party can still survive through its moral and cultural compact with the electorate. Dave and his modernisers have trashed that long ago. In an English context, for example, do they seriously expect Catholic Tories to vote for them after they actively supported the militantly anti-Christian legislation that forced the closure of Catholic adoption agencies that could not, in conscience, be complicit in homosexual adoption?

That is not a rhetorical, but a practical, question. Many more could be asked regarding the Conservative Party's repudiation of the Judaeo-Christian ethic and its increasing alienation from and of those who espouse traditional values. This will not trouble the Cameron supporters, since they are more than likely to win the next general election. That is when the problems will arise, when a frantic nation discovers it has elected Blue Labour and that, since nothing has changed under the present political system – including any referendum on the Lisbon Treaty – the only recourse may be to abolish the status quo.





Page 1 of 1

 
1

Itchy,

22/03/2009 02:44:46
Wonder how long it will be before the usual Marxists come here to try and blame capitalism for the current mess which is, in actual fact, caused by Labour's insatiable greed for higher tax and insatiable lust for intervening in the money supply.
2

The Ayrshire Bard,

22/03/2009 10:43:59
This article is so full of drivel that it could have been written by Gordon Brown's top speech writer.
All the fancy words nd sentences don't cover the fact that this is every bit as meaningless as the Labour manifesto.
I wonder if we'll ever hear of Gerald Warner again when this paper is sold?
3

Itchy,

22/03/2009 11:49:35
#2 Gordon Brown loves to tax and regulate, which GW does not.
4

Observer,,

Glasgow 22/03/2009 12:43:24
It's capitalism wot done it Itchy.
5

Toast,

22/03/2009 18:10:46
Good points,I've never not voted but I'm sick to death of lying politicians and their false promises,one more go then emigration me thinks.
6

Newton_Invented_Gravity,

22/03/2009 21:01:46
#1Nothing like getting your retaliation in first eh?
Marxists represent a tiny number of adherents to a very particular ideology. Your contention that anyone who happens to disagree with you is one, is frankly ludicrous.

You are no true friend of capitalism if you deny that the current economic crisis was caused by some fault of our current implementation of capitalism. We cannot fix the problem unless we admit that there is one.
7

Itchy,

22/03/2009 23:38:56
#4 wrong, it was interventionism what done it. Your post is Marxist.

#7 your post is only true if words have no meaning and particularly if the word capitalism has no meaning.

BTW anti-capitalists always resort, in the end, to Marxist cliches. Because they do not take ideas seriously, they do not even know that they are making Marxist statements.

p.s. you are a Marxist.
8

Newton_Invented_Gravity,

23/03/2009 09:01:15
#8 The meaning you give to 'capitalism' bears little relation to the actual implementation of capitalism that we have in actual existence. If you think that anyone who happens to disagree with your extremely narrow view is a 'Marxist', it just shows that you really need to grow up a bit.
9

Radge,

Aberdeen 23/03/2009 09:31:08
Where's Lackey Tord to defend the dear leader Gordon Brown?
10

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 23/03/2009 12:08:47
Newton_Invented_Gravity - you hit the nail on the head - Itchy tends to write off anyone who disagrees with him / her as a "Marxist", then has the brass neck to describe others' contributions as "meaningless".

Itchy - let me ask, again, why you think that 'interventionism' caused the current crisis, as opposed to free-market agents such as irresponsible financiers, corporate lawyers, ratings agencies, mortgage brokers and irresponsible borrowers, not to mention regulators who couldn't keep up with the complex private-sector products, and corrupt politicians who actually DISCOURAGED and undermined regulators. The root cause of the current crisis wasn't Bill Clinton, as you and your soulmate Gerald Warner have tried to suggest, but the fundamental imbalance in the global economy caused by the East's surplus of savings, which ushered in the era of low bond yields and hence cheap credit.

As for the debate - higher tax is inevitable, whoever wins power.
11

Itchy,

23/03/2009 23:00:41
#9 and not one definition of capitalism given. Do not try to patronise me, bozo. I know economics and I know what words mean, something you do not.

#11 You are marxist and thick and dishonest.

"Itchy - let me ask, again, why you think that 'interventionism' caused the current crisis"

I have answered this before many times. Central banks are a key plank of the communist manifesto and are a nationalization of the money supply. It is always state intervention in the money supply that gives rise to boom and bust.

BTW GW is not my soul mate and you are showing how clueless you are.

12

Itchy,

Lochgelly 23/03/2009 23:01:50
#11 "as opposed to free-market agents such as irresponsible financiers, corporate lawyers, ratings agencies, mortgage brokers and irresponsible borrowers, not to mention regulators who couldn't keep up with the complex private-sector products, and corrupt politicians who actually DISCOURAGED and undermined regulators"

How are these agents 'free-market'? Could this be a rewording of the MARXIST and false idea that business is capitalist? I think so.
13

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 24/03/2009 18:14:56
# 13 Itchy:

Yes, it's true: "Je suis marxiste..... tendence Groucho".

Regarding financiers, corporate lawyers, ratings agencies, mortgage brokers, personal borrowers and the laissez-faire politicians who encouraged them, you asked, bizarrely: "How are these agents 'free-market'?"

Well, strangely enough, they're under the impression that they were and are pursuing private profit, within a capitalist system, as opposed to working for the government within a "Marxist" system in Itchy's Parallel Universe.

I would be interested to hear a specific example of a Marxist corporate lawyer, a Trotskyite Wall Street investment banker and a Leninist loan shark; but, considering that you've still to supply an example of a "leftwing neocon" (following on from one of your earlier "contributions" many weeks ago), I won't hold my breath.

I can't comment on your economics qualifications / credentials but I'm more than happy with mine, thanks, having made my living from them for a couple of decades, therefore, unlike you, I don't feel the insecure need to resort to juvenile insults (which, by the way, make you sound about 14 years old).

Meanwhile, ignoring the fact that you don't deal with specific points raised earlier (eg the Far Eastern savings surplus), I shall do you the politeness of addressing the semi-argument amongst your ubiquitous references to "Marxism" (Q. Have you run out of adjectives up there in the Kingdom of Fife?). You appear to believe that all forms of economic society other than that purely theoretical construct, "free competition" (which never existed anywhere, anytime), are false and flawed.....which would put you in a tiny, discredited minority.

As for the old "Marxist central banks" schtick, yes, control of the money supply and credit is a central tenet of the Communist Manifesto but the current set-up is a lot more complex. Nobody but a few rightwing paranoics seriously believes that the various government stakeholdings will be main
14

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 24/03/2009 18:16:49
[Continued]........

Nobody but a few rightwing paranoics seriously believes that the various government stakeholdings will be maintained indefinitely. On the contrary, denationalisation is a stated long-term objective. Meanwhile, toxic assets are being dumped on the public sector / taxpayer so that the money-making can start again.

By the way.... the first central banks in the world appeared in the 17th century, eg the Riksbank of Sweden, the Bank of England etc, predating Karl Marx by hundreds of years, and with, I think it's fair to say, very different political agendas!
15

Itchy,

24/03/2009 18:25:39
#14 "Well, strangely enough, they're under the impression that they were and are pursuing private profit, within a capitalist system, as opposed to working for the government within a "Marxist" system in Itchy's Parallel Universe.
"

Marxist fallacy that business is capitalist and also the logical fallacy of begging the question or assuming that which you are trying to prove.

In non-Marxist reality, business is quite happy to call for, and accept, state intervention in return for other priviledges, which is exactly what is happening now.

The rest of your post is rubbish and, when did you ask for a left-wing neocon?

Neo-cons are big government interventionists and not capitalists as you made out a few weeks ago.
16

Itchy,

24/03/2009 18:28:21
#15 "By the way.... the first central banks in the world appeared in the 17th century, eg the Riksbank of Sweden, the Bank of England etc, predating Karl Marx by hundreds of years, and with, I think it's fair to say, very different political agendas"

Thicko, I know that central banks predate Marx but the fact remains that he is the main popularizer of the theory of central banking and the purpose of all central banks is to expand the currency and fund big government.

"which would put you in a tiny, discredited minority."

Fallacy ad hominem. This fallacy is also used by Marx and Marxists.

Anyway, I'm off now so enjoy your ignorance and Marxism until the next issue of SOS.
17

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 24/03/2009 21:01:15
# 16 and # 17 Itchy -

You're losing the plot, bigtime, if you think that business is Marxist / anti-capitalist because they accept state aid. What else is a profit-maximising entity supposed to do?

"...the fact remains that [Marx] is the main popularizer of the theory of central banking...."

On the contrary: the fact is that most people are simply unaware of Marx's Communist Manifesto but recognise that central banking is an old, pre-19th century idea, and one, furthermore, that assists capitalism.

Re: leftwing neocons. Whether or not you recall our discussion is neither here nor there. You got yourself into a fankle when you said that neocons were interventionists, and suggested that some of them were leftwingers. I merely asked for some proof, as opposed to Sixth-Year Studies dogma and namecalling.

And I'm still waiting!

Also, I'm interested that you think that the Far Eastern savings surpluses is "rubbish". Surely you must have read about it in the papers at the time?

Meanwhile, thanks for the laugh! I'm looking forward to your next week's "contribution"; nearly as good as "The Broons" and "Oor Wullie" :-)
18

Newton_Invented_Gravity,

25/03/2009 23:04:04
#12 If you really are as smart as you claim, then you do a disservice to yourself by branding everyone who disagrees with you as a 'marxist', because it just makes you look like a 12 year old nitwit.
19

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 26/03/2009 18:50:33
# 20 Cynicus in Exile - a very interesting theory, and completely plausible.... I cannae think that Itchy will like it, but, never mind!

I see your point (and Itchy's) regarding neocons who started life as Trotskyites. It is often said that the extreme left and right are actually very similar - hence the relative ease with which certain individuals gravitate across the political spectrum.

What I doubted, previously, and queried Itch about, was whether any of today's neocons are Marxists / lefties, as he suggested a few weeks ago.

However, if we've widened the definition of "neocon" to include those who USED to be Trots, and who favour "big government" (albeit to promote capitalism as opposed to the dictatorship of the proletariat), then, yes, I stand corrected!

That said, I'm not entirely convinced that American neocons "married up Marx's Laws of History with America's "Manifest Destiny". There didn't appear to be much Marxism in evidence after the Iraq invasion in 2003 was followed by the distribution of government contracts to favoured private corporations such as Halliburton.

However.....as I said, nice analysis / theory, and I hope that Lochgelly's answer to Bill Haydon comes back with some kind of response!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.